Another tesla auto pilot crash

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yes.  Well, I mean you "sign up" by using it.  No one's forcing you to  

not talking about the "driver", but the rest of the people on the road

the driver of the lorry, or whatever it was, that Tesla drove under - he didn't signed to have self driving card crash into him

[Curufinwe_wins]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

not talking about the "driver", but the rest of the people on the road

the driver of the lorry, or whatever it was, that Tesla drove under - he didn't signed to have self driving card crash into him

I didn't sign up to have your normal car crash into me.  Something that is far more likely. 

 

Just saying. It's a really poor argument. 

 

Either way it's literally 100% the driver's fault. 

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

I didn't sign up to have your normal car crash into me.  Something that is far more likely. 

 

Just saying. It's a really poor argument. 

no it's not

and there are millions of drivers in this world that haven't crashed their cars by their own fault

 

drivers, people, have to pass driver's exam; what exam Tesla's AP pass?

it failed to recognize a white truck ....

Tesla's AP is only as good as the worst member of their software engineering team

[thekeemo]

From the Tesla forum:

Quote

AP is not to be used on roads with crossroads and is too be used on roads with more lanes.

 

[vanished]

Just to make my point of view on this clear once and for all (in case it wasn't) I love (true) autonomous vehicles and the potential for them, but I hate AP and the fools who blindly trust it as if it were flawless, when both the news and the company who makes it make it very clear that it isn't.

[ShadowCaptain]

13 hours ago, DevilishBooster said:

 

IF this is really the result of using autopilot, this is a prime example of why I have no interest in autopilot cars at this point

its not a self driving CAR! its radar breaking and lane assist for motorways

 

thats it

 

its not designed to be used on back roads, or for regular driving, its for long highway/motorway journeys and is designed to keep you in a lane, and break automatically and keep speed with other traffic

 

The name is stupid, and I blame tesla for the name being misleading, but the actual features of the car are not designed to be used as "set and forget"- it wont just drive you to your destination all on its own without you paying attention, and it will not navigate complicated back roads with no markings etc

 

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Just to make my point of view on this clear once and for all (in case it wasn't) I love (true) autonomous vehicles and the potential for them, but I hate AP and the fools who blindly trust it as if it were flawless, when both the news and the company who makes it make it very clear that it isn't.

Tesla REALLY should change the name to "highway lane assist" or something

 

"autopilot" is a misleading name for a dangerous feature 

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

I'm thinking that tesla should implement a feature where AP turns off in places with bad roads.

No, it's experimental, and as crazy as it might sound the more accidents happen now the better it will be in the future. Of course I don't wish a car crash upon anyone but if there are bugs, this is what gets them solved.

11 hours ago, zMeul said:

what is AP's function? for Tesla to BETA test on people?!

Yes, EXACTLY that. They have been very clear about it upon release. They have repeatedly stressed how you should always have your hands on the weel and be alert while using it. The reality of it is that it will never be ready if it's not tested in the real world.

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The reality of it is that it will never be ready if it's not tested in the real world.

then why is it tested in the real world and handed to morons who don't and won't follow the instructions - it's not like Tesla isn't aware of this, they just don't care

and if it happens that people die in the process .. who's responsible? but of course not Tesla 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

then why is it tested in the real world and handed to morons who don't and won't follow the instructions - it's not like Tesla isn't aware of this

The real world is full of morons. This needs to be moron proof.

[Bsmith]

Besides that whole crap about an idiot fully relying on an automatic driving system that is in public test phase.

Am I the only one amazed by the fact that there are area's in the US without cellphone coverage?

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

The real world is full of morons. This needs to be moron proof.

to be moron proof, 1st it must be 100% capable

and yet it can't see stumps on the road or white trailers 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

to be moron proof, 1st it must be 100% capable

and yet it can't see stumps on the road or white trailers 

But again, you can't find all bugs in a lab or even with a small team of professionals. It's still work in progress. When it's done, it will have to be moron proof. The sooner it gets moron tested, the sooner it will be ready.

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But again, you can't find all bugs in a lab or even with a small team of professionals. It's still work in progress. When it's done, it will have to be moron proof. The sooner it gets moron tested, the sooner it will be ready.

work in progress that shouldn't be conducted on people

there are ways for autonomous driving systems to evolve - take for example other companies that are involved in the field, they're doing it by having AI races

that's how you evolve it, not by putting random people's lives at risk

 

even train engines require the conductor to have hand on controls at all times - and this is true for maybe 100y

and yet, Tesla's AP drives itself with the driver sleeping or .. I dunno, dead - it doesn't care

[DevilishBooster]

5 hours ago, ShadowCaptain said:

its not a self driving CAR! its radar breaking and lane assist for motorways

thats it

its not designed to be used on back roads, or for regular driving, its for long highway/motorway journeys and is designed to keep you in a lane, and break automatically and keep speed with other traffic

The name is stupid, and I blame tesla for the name being misleading, but the actual features of the car are not designed to be used as "set and forget"- it wont just drive you to your destination all on its own without you paying attention, and it will not navigate complicated back roads with no markings etc

Tesla REALLY should change the name to "highway lane assist" or something

"autopilot" is a misleading name for a dangerous feature 

Exactly, that's why I'm pretty sure this is going to come out as operator error and no fault will be placed on Tesla, and that's why I have no interest in cars features like this at this time. There are self driving cars out there that are being worked on, but they are a loooooooooong way from being ready for consumer use.

[ShadowCaptain]

1 minute ago, DevilishBooster said:

Exactly, that's why I'm pretty sure this is going to come out as operator error and no fault will be placed on Tesla, and that's why I have no interest in cars features like this at this time. There are self driving cars out there that are being worked on, but they are a loooooooooong way from being ready for consumer use.

well I use radar cruise control on the motorway, it tracks the car in front, breaks, maintians my speed and follow distance, etc

this with some lane guidance is great, I can chill out just that little bit more knowing my car will remain straight and true on the motorway, i think being slightly less aware is better than being sleepy and tired at the wheel, I could concentrage less and save my energy, while still watching the road and chilling to music

ive been in a tesla with the feature on, and its useful, but its NOT something to rely on, it doenst have the advanced camera and radar system of like a google car etc

 

id happily have this on my car as long as I understand when, where and how to use it

[spartaman64]

4 hours ago, Sauron said:

No, it's experimental, and as crazy as it might sound the more accidents happen now the better it will be in the future. Of course I don't wish a car crash upon anyone but if there are bugs, this is what gets them solved.

Yes, EXACTLY that. They have been very clear about it upon release. They have repeatedly stressed how you should always have your hands on the weel and be alert while using it. The reality of it is that it will never be ready if it's not tested in the real world.

im not saying it should be removed but it should detect that it is in a region where it cannot be used safely so it forces the driver to drive

[Sauron]

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

im not saying it should be removed but it should detect that it is in a region where it cannot be used safely so it forces the driver to drive

how do you force the driver to keep his hands on the weel? microshocks?

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

how do you force the driver to keep his hands on the weel? microshocks?

make the AP refuse to turn on. and beep at the driver and display a message that AP cannot be turned on at your location

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

make the AP refuse to turn on. and beep at the driver and display a message that AP cannot be turned on at your location

But then bugs like this will remain unsolved. It's a beta test, not allowing you to test it defeats the purpose. If the driver signs in and is stupid enough to blindly trust experimental software after he was specifically warned to keep his hands on the wheel he is the one at fault.

[spartaman64]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

But then bugs like this will remain unsolved. It's a beta test, not allowing you to test it defeats the purpose. If the driver signs in and is stupid enough to blindly trust experimental software after he was specifically warned to keep his hands on the wheel he is the one at fault.

test that in the laboratory but rn it unnecessarily puts people in danger. and tesla AP has a driving pattern of getting close to the line and then correcting itself and its suppose to warn you when it doesnt know where the road is. it may not have warned the person in this case and the person thought it drifting towards the edge of the road was just the normal driving pattern until its too late 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

test that in the laboratory but rn it unnecessarily puts people in danger. and tesla AP has a driving pattern of getting close to the line and then correcting itself and its suppose to warn you when it doesnt know where the road is. it may not have warned the person in this case and the person thought it drifting towards the edge of the road was just the normal driving pattern until its too late 

Don't you think they tested it in a lab before releasing it? The only way to test it properly is to put it on the road with normal people. It doesn't put any more people at risk than any other car. Try driving a normal car with your hands off the wheel, let's see how that goes. When you accept to use AP you are told very clearly that you should always stay alert and keep your hands on the wheel at all times - there is no need for special warnings because you have been warned preemptively.

 

If it didn't warn the driver that it didn't know what it was doing (if) then that's a bug, and it would not have been found in a laboratory. Eventually the full thing will be released and if it's not ready because it hasn't been tested before being released to a wider audience it will be much worse.

[spartaman64]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Don't you think they tested it in a lab before releasing it? The only way to test it properly is to put it on the road with normal people. It doesn't put any more people at risk than any other car. Try driving a normal car with your hands off the wheel, let's see how that goes. When you accept to use AP you are told very clearly that you should always stay alert and keep your hands on the wheel at all times - there is no need for special warnings because you have been warned preemptively.

 

If it didn't warn the driver that it didn't know what it was doing (if) then that's a bug, and it would not have been found in a laboratory. Eventually the full thing will be released and if it's not ready because it hasn't been tested before being released to a wider audience it will be much worse.

test it on the road with professional testers not the average person who is careless. its like if you sell everyone grenades for self defense and saywell if they blow themselves up they are ignoring the warning labels so we are not reponsible

[Revinval]

The issue people always forget is more often than not a human is a better driver than the autopilot. The autopilot won't get distracted or fall asleep but it always has its limitations. Humans can deal with every situation that they can come across in a car but get distracted. So lets be clear here autopilot is better at the human weaknesses but worse at its strengths. We need to be honest with ourselves there should be autopilot enabled roads and manual roads that is what I forsee the near future to hold. 

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

test it on the road with professional testers not the average person who is careless. its like if you sell everyone grenades for self defense and saywell if they blow themselves up they are ignoring the warning labels so we are not reponsible

The average person is EXACTLY the one it needs to be tested on. Aside from the sheer number of testers (they have a lot more customers than they can afford professional testers), a professional uses precautions that the average person won't use and may not find a lot of bugs. For example in this case a professional might not have even taken that particular road.

 

Grenades are a terrible comparison. First of all grenades are intended to explode. Second, you have not been trained to handle a grenade but you HAVE been trained to handle a car. Third, grenades serve no practical purpose to the average person. Fourth, grenades are not in beta testing and if they were, all situation would be easily reproducible in a lab - not so with automated cars.

 

Fifth, and this is the irony more than a counterargument, in the US you can buy a wide range of weapons without any sort of training - that's not banned, but people want to ban the autopilot that has been responsible for one death total in the last year against 12k deaths caused by weapons (again in the us).

2 hours ago, Revinval said:

The issue people always forget is more often than not a human is a better driver than the autopilot. The autopilot won't get distracted or fall asleep but it always has its limitations. Humans can deal with every situation that they can come across in a car but get distracted. So lets be clear here autopilot is better at the human weaknesses but worse at its strengths. We need to be honest with ourselves there should be autopilot enabled roads and manual roads that is what I forsee the near future to hold. 

In theory the autopilot should be better than a human when it comes to following the law and avoiding accidents. What you lose is performance more than anything, and that is not particularly important when driving on a normal road. Of course the AP is not ready yet, but when it will be it will be better than a human in everything that truly matters - aka getting you to your destination safely.

 

It kind of bothers me as someone who enjoys driving but in the end it's probably for the better.

[spartaman64]

44 minutes ago, Sauron said:

The average person is EXACTLY the one it needs to be tested on. Aside from the sheer number of testers (they have a lot more customers than they can afford professional testers), a professional uses precautions that the average person won't use and may not find a lot of bugs. For example in this case a professional might not have even taken that particular road.

 

Grenades are a terrible comparison. First of all grenades are intended to explode. Second, you have not been trained to handle a grenade but you HAVE been trained to handle a car. Third, grenades serve no practical purpose to the average person. Fourth, grenades are not in beta testing and if they were, all situation would be easily reproducible in a lab - not so with automated cars.

 

Fifth, and this is the irony more than a counterargument, in the US you can buy a wide range of weapons without any sort of training - that's not banned, but people want to ban the autopilot that has been responsible for one death total in the last year against 12k deaths caused by weapons (again in the us).

In theory the autopilot should be better than a human when it comes to following the law and avoiding accidents. What you lose is performance more than anything, and that is not particularly important when driving on a normal road. Of course the AP is not ready yet, but when it will be it will be better than a human in everything that truly matters - aka getting you to your destination safely.

 

It kind of bothers me as someone who enjoys driving but in the end it's probably for the better.

if it was free maybe i would be more inclined to agree with you but it cost money so that makes it more of a product that is unfinished than a test